With all this writing, and printing and publishing, it must have been hot and exciting work in London. As the day for opening parliament approached, the houses of Burdett, and Cartwright, and Cobbett became the daily resort of Reformers. At this time, Burdett was getting cool over the great question, and the principal labours fell upon the hands of Mr. Cobbett and of Lord Cochrane; the latter, by the way, having charge of a monster petition. Besides this, there were two public appearances in Hampshire: one, on the occasion of a grand meeting upon Portsdown hill, and the other at Winchester. One evidence of the state of popular feeling upon the questions of Reform and of the threatened invasions of the liberty of the people, is shown in the presentation of six hundred petitions to the Commons on the 5th of March alone. And well might the nation be alarmed. As soon as the preliminaries of the session had been completed, the ministry introduced their Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill, and passed also an Act for preventing “seditious meetings and assemblies.” The public voice was thus completely enthralled. And, amid all the hubbub, it was known that the leading object in view was to silence Mr. Cobbett.[4] The Government might as well have taken up the broom of Mrs. Partington, in order to dispose of Mr. Cobbett. The only effect, upon him, was to provide new and beautiful topics for his readers:-- “I will first explain clearly what the Habeas Corpus Act is, &c.” “Suffer me to say a word or two about the Hawkers’ and Pedlars’ Act.” and so forth; with full exposition of all previous futile attempts upon the progress of liberty and intelligence. The papers in the _Register_ of this period ought to have convinced Ministers of the error of their ways: of the utterly false position in which they had placed themselves. So clear in description; so cogent in their reasoning; so temperate. And withal, so full of the writer’s own humour:-- “… irreligious, immoral, or seditious TENDENCY. Only think of the extent of this word _tendency!_ only think of the boundless extent of such a word, and of such a word being left to the interpretation of thousands of men! Suppose the editor of a newspaper to insert an article, which article recommended the reduction of the salt-tax: what does this _tend_ to? Why, to be sure, a magistrate might think, to make the people discontented with the salt-tax; to make them discontented with the salt-tax would be, he might think, to make them discontented with those who compel the people to pay it; those who compel the people to pay it are Kings, Lords, and Commons; and, therefore, here is an article which _tends_ to make the people discontented with Kings, Lords, and Commons, and which, of course, _tends_ to produce hatred of them, and to bring about insurrection, treason, revolution, and blood and carnage!”